Usefulness and Impact on Management of Positive and Negative Capsule Endoscopy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the usefulness of positive and negative capsule endoscopies (CEs), and the impact of each on short- and long-term patient management. METHODS: Medical records were reviewed for 70 consecutive CE patients. Based on outcomes from referring physicians, it was determined whether CE was useful, partially useful or not useful at all in the overall patient management, and whether CE assisted in providing a diagnosis, and impacted on short-term long-term management. RESULTS: CE indications included overt bleeding (37%), occult bleeding (20%), iron deficiency (17%), abdominal pain and weight loss (13%), assessing the extent of or confirming a diagnosis of Crohn's disease (9%) and screening for familial adenomatous polyposis (4%). Positive studies were seen in 58% of overt bleeds, 50% of occult bleeds, 33% of iron deficiencies and 33% of Crohn's diseases. Overall, 28 studies (40%) were positive studies and 42 (60%) were negative studies. CE aided in diagnosis in 11 of 28 (39%) positive and 12 of 42 (29%) negative studies (P=0.35). Positive and negative CEs had an impact on short-term management in 12 of 28 (43%) versus 18 of 42 (43%) cases, respectively (P=1.0), and on long-term management in 14 of 28 (50%) versus 15 of 42 (36%) cases, respectively (P=0.23). For positive and negative studies, respectively, CE was considered useful in 12 of 28 (43%) versus 15 of 42 (36%) cases (39% overall), partially useful in 10 of 28 (36%) versus 10 of 42 (24%) cases (28% overall), and not useful at all in six of 28 (21%) versus 17 of 42 (40%) cases (33% overall). CONCLUSIONS: Although a negative CE may aid in making a definitive diagnosis in only 29% of patients, its effect on management and overall usefulness is similar to that of a positive CE. A physician's decision on whether to order CE should not be based solely on the pretest probability of a positive examination but also on the clinical utility of a negative study.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.054 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".